Regarding the Tet offensive, Kurtis remarked, "Once you lose the trust of the media, you're dead." He was elaborating on Walter Cronkite's stance against the Vietnam War in the wake of Tet. Kurtis also spoke about the dichotomy between events on the ground in Vietnam and the official press briefings.
Here are a few key points from the Q&A session:
- Future journalists must be computer savvy. They will have to edit video, compose stories and engage new media.
- Bloggers don't have traditional editorial checks, nor do they have to account for their work like mainstream media does.
- News has skewed towards opinion. The immediacy of today's reporting compromises balance.
- In a challenging media environment, Soldiers can tell their story by engaging local media and forming relationships. At the same time, reporting Iraq and Afghanistan is more difficult than ever because of how long the wars have lasted and the American public is losing patience.
Key takeaway from the Question and Answer was that in order to get coverage in an environment of reduced staffs and revenues for media outlets is to present a packaged story to a journalist as an exclusive.
ReplyDeleteSurprising the return to local media attention as where news will be covered. Seems counterintuitive given media outlet consolidation and globalization.
ReplyDeleteMr. Kurtis's speech was not as focused as it should have been based on the audience. Most of us (as field grades officers), did not or could not directly relate to Mr. Kurtis's inference toward the Vietnam era. I believe it is imcumbent that the speaker have a basic knowledge of the audience, thereby able to offer revelant feed-back and/or discussions during their presentation.
ReplyDeleteI didn't really take away anything from Mr. Kurtis' presentation. He never really tied anything together as far as the media and the military today. His videos had no added value to the presentation; could have done without them.
ReplyDeleteMr Kurtis missed a key opportunity to demonstrate the benefits of media and military relations. As the investigator for the Agent Orange investigations he could have tied his investigative reporting into showing how the media is not the enemy of the military.
ReplyDeleteI was very disappointed with Mr. Kurtis's presentation. I believe he missed a great opportunity to highlight the positive relationship that the media and military can enjoy under the proper circumstances. More
ReplyDeletespecifically, if had led his presentation with the Agent Orange story he would have built initial trust with the audience. Moreover, through that example he would have demonstrated that the journalist was the catalyst
for positive change to the military and not the military or chemical companies. Instead he rambled through this successful career using
misplaced examples to draw ambiguous conclusions. At the end of the presentation I was unclear why he was speaking to the class.
Additionally I felt that the video series at the end of his presentation was distasteful, off topic, and full of self promotion.
-Major Randy Riker
SG 11A
I thouroughly enjoyed the presentation. I think that Mr. Kurtis demonstrated how the media can be extremely useful and beneficial to the military. His investigative report on Agent Orange shows us how the right member of the media with the right information can have a profound impact on all of us. I would highly recommend that he returns in the future to speak to us.
ReplyDeleteMAJ Kurt Nelson
SG 11A
Mr. Kurtis is, by all accounts, a respectable journalist and media personality. The purpose of his visit was to address the importance of military-media relations. He failed miserably at this mission. His story about Agent Orange presented an opportunity to lead with a compelling example of how the media can provide positive influence. Perhaps a little audience analysis and message shaping would have helped Mr. Kurtis to develop a relevant and appropriate message. This was a missed opportunity!
ReplyDeleteMaj Mike McClure, SG 11A
I found Mr. Kurtis to be an exceptionally polished speaker. His inflection, tone and delivery of his material showed his extensive background in broadcast journalism. His content was interesting in that it gave a real-world example of how the media was able to focus attention onto a problem. In the case of his story about "agent orange", it led to reforms which were of tremendous benefit to service members. SG11A
ReplyDeleteI agree with most the previous comments. This was truly a missed opportunity on a grand scale. Mr. Curtis has a large following just based on his recent cable TV work and the AT&T commercials. This should have given him some marginal credibility from the start. However, he seemed to ramble off topic for most of the time. Additionally, he would have been better suited to have given a brief introduction about his early investigative reporting successes (the Agent Orange story) followed by the TWO short video clips. The clips are really where he could have established his credibility and made his money. Even though the subject matter occurred so long ago, it illustrates how a persistent media can effect positive change. Mr. Kurtis did himself no favors by showing them at the very tail end of the presentation. I won't comment on the absurd third video clip.
ReplyDeleteI also felt like he did not sufficiently answer any of the questions during the Q&A portion. He gave very vague, generalized answers to the questions he was presented. I have a very healthy respect for the role of the media and their relationship with both the military and the public. However, I am not naive enough to believe his assertion that no one in the media would intentionally report anything with a preconceived slant or political aganda. It's simply not true. There is an agenda involved in almost every facet of the media. If you understand that concept in the beginning, then you're ahead of the game when dealing with the media. My opinion, I still respect Mr. Kurtis for his distinguished and mostly positive career as a professional journalist, but he really blew his chance to make a positive impact for his profession.
Mr. Kurtis work on exposing Agent Orange and helping veterans receive treatment for their injuries was an amazing accomplishment. He encountered major obstacles from the US military and Veterans Administration while researching the story. He should have drawn on these problems and highlighted those who worked with and for him during his research. Without something to tie it all together, he wasted our time. Also, the prison porn video he presented at the end of his presentation was way off base and should have been excluded from the presentation.
ReplyDeleteI was extremely dissapointed in Mr. Kurtis's presentation today. First of all he missed a very key opportunity to demonstrate the benefits of media and military relations. As the investigator on an agent orange investigations
ReplyDeletehe had all the tools and knowledge to tie it back into the media and military but he never expounded on it and just kind of left it out in the open. His video clips would of brought some validity to his story if they would have been played up front to segment into his presentation. As for the third video clip, I will not give me honest and truthful opinion on it, but professtionally I thought it was completely absurd and was extremely offended by it as was I his opening joke. Mr. Kurtis had all the time in the world to lend credit to his profession but instead used it (in my opinion) to brag or bolster himself and promote his A&E show. Lastly I felt his feable attempt to provide answers to the questions that were presented at the end was horrific to say the least. He seemed to continue to "dance around the questions" and answered them with no relevancey what so ever.
Don't get me wrong I still respect Mr. Kurtis for his longevity, distinguished career and support of the military, but I honestly feel he failed to meet his objectives, especailly in front of 1000 plus professional Soldiers and Civilians.
MAJ Darin E. Huss
Several of the CGSS student blog entries above correctly note that Mr. Kurtis’ presentation wasn’t tailored for the CGSS audience, but they’re failing to observe that he was brought here as a guest of CSI (not CGSC) to address historical perspectives of the media’s relationship with the military. One of the great benefits of co-locating ILE with other Army centers is that we have the chance to jump in when opportunities present themselves. In these cases it’s up to us to find the learning points instead of expecting the speaker to focus his presentation for the secondary audience.
ReplyDeleteIn this instance, Mr. Kurtis’ investigation of the effects of Agent Orange offers a valuable lesson on how a story can gain momentum when it’s connected first with a human dimension (the close-up shot of the young boy with deformed fingers), and then with the larger picture (deforestation, massive casualties, etc). He mentioned that the public has little desire to see daily coverage of every explosion. As a single data point, each individual attack is bad news and the public doesn’t want any more of that. But if you can compile a history of a specific neighborhood and hand off a story that attacks in that area have decreased XX% while schools have been built and the locals can find real jobs instead of setting IEDs for whoever is willing to pay, you now have a “sellable” story that the media can work with.
The reporter just wants to tell a compelling story; if we want to influence that story, it’s our responsibility to do more than present data and hope the media can connect the dots.
Maj Chris Bell, SG 19C
Thanks to MAJ Bell for pointing out that Mr. Kurtis was not here to present specifically to the CGSC class but was a target of opportunity afforded to us because of the CSI symposium. I think that it is important that when we are "invited" to listen to a speaker there may be times when that person has been asked to come talk about a specific topic that may not nest with what we are learning at CGSC at that moment. Mr. Kurtis was invited to present the keynote address to a symposium covering the history of media relations with the military and his talk was on target for that audience.
ReplyDeleteAs for us I think a take away that many of us missed was his point that we need to be aggresive in getting our story out there and in the hands of the media. Develop relationships with reporters prior to a deployment - local and national if you can - do it now as part of your STRATCOM requirement. Then, when you are deployed you have an outlet for those stories you feel are worth painting the picture of what your unit is doing while deployed or at home station.
Given that Mr. Kurtis' keynote speech was intended for the CSI Symposium, and not the 1000+ unexpected hangers-on of ILE, he nonetheless delivered an exceptionally well-spoken, but insubstantial lecture.
ReplyDeleteThe first half of his delivery was a commercial of his admittedly remarkable achievements; and the latter half a rather rushed executive summary of his efforts publicizing the deleterious effects of Agent Orange.
Unfortunately, he merely provided a first-person perspective, ex post facto, of an historical event with no historical context, rendering it virtually meaningless to a contemporary audience. Mr. Kurtis had an extraordinary opportunity in at least two instances: focus on the CSI S (as keynote speaker) and relate his personal experiences in Vietnam, with special regard to Agent Orange, and with specific historic context; or focus on the larger ILE audience, and relate the same experiences-- and deliver the same central focus --, but with a deliberate theme of Media-Military Relations.
He chose neither. Amazingly, the only portion of his investigative telecast he chose to share was a segment which focused on how Agent Orange had altered or destroyed the Vietnamese ecoscape; a segment with a decidedly antagonistic tone.
Finally, I'm absolutely positive I would have rather seen one of his sidecar commercials, and left the report of prison porn back in the dark and dusty bottom drawer where it belongs.
In my opinion, Mr. Kurtis was not prepared to present the topic of information to the audience he encountered. I felt that he rambled and did not tie any of his thoughts together into a message or theme.
ReplyDeleteHe did, however, provide incredible insight to how the media can be of use to the military. He offered his services numerous times as a point of contact to break a news story. His answers to the questions were well addressed and he did discuss an often forgotten avenue into the media, the local press.
Hometown news and local press, in my opinion, can be a great tool to provide information to people in a local community or even your own hometown. Sometimes it is better for the public to hear from service members from their own hometown rather than a spokesman from some agency or organization. I did take away this nugget of information, but I could have done so without the video clips.
MAJ Smith, Dean (SG10B)
Mr. Kurtis has an excellent speaking voice, and he’s a good story teller, but his speech was not very well organized and even seemed to ramble at times. Also, the presentation seemed unsynchronized with the supposed theme of military and media relations. He made quite a few interesting remarks but there wasn’t much follow-through. For instance, I was very interested in hearing how the North Vietnamese occupied Saigon; it would have been very informative to find out how a communist organization conducts civil-military affairs and information operations from a BOG point of view. Unfortunately Mr. Kurtis only touched briefly on the topic, mentioning “re-education camps” and other atrocities in passing, but failed to give any facts or analysis.
ReplyDeleteHis investigative work on Agent Orange is laudable. His work on that subject has helped to bring about aid to veterans suffering from exposure to that herbicide, and that is worthy of heartfelt thanks. I also believe he was on target with the comment of building relationships with the media. That is something that professional Soldiers will have to excel at in the digital age. I found his comment about the non-newsworthiness of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq provocative. I can see his point but I found it disturbing.
The video clip and comment about Marines at the end were appalling and unsuitable for a professional military education environment.
Mr. Kurtis did not seem prepared for his talk to the CSI and CGSOC Students. His message was unclear and he did not appear to have his remarks organized in a logical pattern. He moved from one subject to the next and back again without finishing the story or clearly articulating his point. Going into his speach, I thought his message would focus on the importance of military/media relations, however, that subject was only discussed briefly. Additionally, the film clips at the end of his address were not cohesive with what I thought his message was and the final one was rather distasteful.
ReplyDeleteMAJ Ricketts, SG 18C thoughts were... Mr. Kurtis speech yesterday day about the media brought up some interesting points. Due to the media, the American people were made aware of the after math of war, especially when it came to Agent Orange during the Vietnam error. Agent Orange did cause a lot of health hazards to our men and women serving in the armed forces during the Vietnam War. There were a number of news clips released from Vietnam showing a number of children that had birth defects. This was only brought to light due to the media. In addition, the media was able to report on how Agent Orange damaged 1,000s of acres of forest; supporting why a vast number of Soldiers serving in the war came down with mysterious illnesses. Even though it was greatly denied by those making the decisions, claiming the illnesses our service men came down with were due to anything other than Agent Orange. Emplacing some trust in the media is crucial. We should make it a point to speak to them especially when something news worthy occurs. However the disturbing news clips did make a turn around the corner from the topic of why the media is important to the military.
ReplyDeleteI agree with MAJ Ricketts that the disturbing clip at the end of the presentation was distracting and detracted from the message of how important a good relationship between the media and the military really is. I also agree with some of the other bloggers when they said that Mr. Kurtis missed an opportunity to really drive home his point because he spent more time talking about his career acheivements and less time talking about his experiences reinforce his message.
ReplyDeleteMAJ Macky Underwood SG 18C
I was hoping that the recognizable Mr. Kurtis was going to enlighten his eager audience with applicable lessons he learned as an accomplished television jounalist and documentary producer. How disappointing that he spent the better part of his 90-minute presentation on a rambling, self-indulgent monologue of his life and career.
ReplyDeleteAlso, at the beginning of Mr. Kurtis' presentation, he spoke of being the son of a Marine,and himself, as a former Marine. I assume he was trying to establish credibility and rapport with his military audience. However, at the end, if there was any credibility left, he quickly extinguished it by making a poor joke and distastefully linking an innappropriate, offensive video clip to "enlisted Marines." This speaker missed the mark and misjudged his audience. He should not be invited back.
Mr. Kurtis’ advice on using local media to “get the good news stories out there” has merit, but I would offer a word of caution when dealing with local press. As Company Commander with two national level embeds during the invasion of Iraq, I had nothing but respect and admiration for their professionalism and objectivity. Granted, they were both left of Karl Marx in ideology; they told the story accurately and with little, if any, slant. During my second stint in theater a couple of years later, the reporters were more of the “B” team variety—generally good, but a little too eager to find the sensational side of the story (read : slant). Back at home-station, however, the local reporters were absolute carnival freaks. They were so desperate to break into the national level, and break big, juicy stories, they abandoned all attempts at objectivity and professionalism (In fact, a single sensational story is how Mr. Kurtis broke into the big show). Fabrication, innuendo without facts, inflammatory rhetoric and outright lies were the rules of the day, and the local garrison and our unit suffered for it. The bottom line is this: In general, local reporters are local because they are either inexperienced or incompetent (or both). Take heed, attempt to find that diamond in the rough and establish a measure of trust first when pursuing the local press. Just my $.02.
ReplyDeleteThe video was indeed vexing, though.
MAJ Erich R. Then SG14D
I think that Mr. Kurtis used his experience with the Agent Orange investigative report to show that the media can have an effect on society for the good. Because of his commitment to finding the truth, Mr. Kurtis was eventually able to help a large number of veterans and their families get the help that they needed and deserved from the American government. However, I do beleive that Mr. Kurtis could have done a better job at driving home his point. Instead, he seemed to wonder about in his delivery causing at least distraction and at worst confusion amongst the audience. It seemed at times that his purpose was to document his career achievements. Then, of course, there was the last video clip that appearently had no connection what-so-ever with anything Mr. Kurtis spoke about. That clip is an example of the disjointed nature of Mr. Kurtis' presentation.
ReplyDeleteMAJ Macky Underwood, SG 18C
I know that Mr. Kurtis is a respected member of the media and as such was selected to share his thoughts/experiences with us. I and all veterans thank him for bringing to the forefront the plight of Vietnam veterans, and contributing to having legislation passed to compensate veterans for their exposure to Agent Orange. However, I found his speech very disjointed, with no value added as to how to better interact with the media and to tell our story. I also did not understand the significance of the last video clip. In the future, I suggest that guest speakers’ presentations be screened for relevance.
ReplyDeleteMr. Kurtis may have been the right keynote speaker for the CSI Symposium, but not for the CGSC class. If we (CGSC class) were attending to tie his adress to the role of media and the military, which was the week prior, he missed the mark and so to did the CGSC planners. During the post game aka "the wrap around" most of my group felt the same. If his presentation was on his exploits in Vietanm and exposing agent orange, then he was spot-on, but I thought it was supposed to be on military/media relations, which he may have spent only seconds on. I recommend either finding someone with more recent relevance and less disturbuing video clips for future classes. In thirty plus years of journalism, I would hope that he would of had a better closing clip...
ReplyDelete